When House Bill 2097 was Introduced in the wee hours of the legislative session, a total surprise to us and other LEOFF1 organizations, you were asked to contact your legislators which many of you did and I want to thank you. At that time, many of the responses from legislators that we received and those that were forwarded to us from our members stated that they were misled by the proponents, Kelly Fox and Bud Sizemore, the President and Legislative Liaison of the Washington State Council of Firefighters. I don't know how involved WACOPS were at this point. Several legislators, some who had even signed as sponsors of the bill said that they were told or it was inferred that the bill was constitutional, and that the bill was a good bill for LEOFF1 and LEOFF 2 fire and police and that the retired LEOFF 1 groups were in support. Nothing could be further from the truth. The LEOFF 1 retiree groups were never contacted and the legal and constitutional question had never been discussed.

In 1962 when i began lobbying as a young firefighter representative of Local 27 and as a member of the Washington State Council of Firefighters I was told that your word is your bond. When you tell a legislator that something is factual it better be the truth and factual. When you are asked a question by a legislator you give a correct answer or you simply state that you don't know. If you promise to get the correct information, you better follow up with the information. Your word was your bond. These were simple lobbying ethics taught and discussed in seminars at that time. These practices, requirements and courtesies are apparently a thing of the past, like so many others. Accountability be damned, just give iip service and make proper legislative donations. Some legislators just responded with the talking points of those promoting the bill. In fact we were just told this week by Representative Mike Hope, a former Seattle police officer who is running for Snohomish County Executive and was a vocal proponent of HB 2097 that he was duped by the proponents of HB 2097 and accepted what he was told as being factual and correct.

We have been told but now question that this bill was suggested by the prime sponsors. Representative Pat Sullivan, the Majority Leader in the House from the 47th legislative district which I believe is Bud Sizemore's legislative district. We have also been told that in a meeting with Representative Sullivan, Kelly Fox, the Chairman of the LEOFF 2 Retirement Board and Steve Nelsen, the Director of the

LEOFF 2 Retirement Board that Steve Nelsen was asked or directed to draft the bill by Representative Sullivan. This would be somewhat unusual. Usually an outline of a bill or a rough draft of a bill Is presented to the code revisers office for final drafting before being forwarded for introduction. All this as we have been told was without authorization or the knowledge of the LEOFF 2 Board. At the LEOFF 2 Retirement Board meeting on June 15,2011, each of the board members present made the statement that they had no previous knowledge of this bill being introduced and that the LEOFF 2 committee had taken no action on this bill. This is hard for a simple man like me to understand. The LEOFF 2 Committee had no knowledge of a bill that would if passed, have had a major impact on the LEOFF 2 Board. The board's chairman Kelly Fox, wearing another hat as President and lobbyist for the Washington State Council of Firefighters has a bill introduced expanding the duties and responsibilities of the LEOFF 2 board without the board's approval and he and his staff were lobbying for the bill. The LEOFF 2 board Director, Steve Nelsen drafted the bill and as the Director of the LEOFF 2 board was being paid by the LEOFF 2 Fund and was travelling around the state promoting the bill. In spite of all this no heads rolled and no resignations were asked for by a single board member. Now one must ask who is in charge.

We have been informed that Steve Nelsen, Director of the LEOFF 2 Retirement Board, without the knowledge of the board, hired and retained an out of state attorney Robert Klausner in Florida for a legal opinion. We later found out as a result of our public information request to which we received 903 pages, that a second legal firm, Ice Miller out of Indianapolis was also retained. We have made several public information requests to Steve Nelsen and to the Attorney General for all the correspondence the board received from the two law firms. As of this time they have both acknowledged receipt of our request but have failed to forward any information. We want to find out how these out of state attorneys were hired, how they were paid for their services and what information or legal opinions did they provide. We've been told that this information is protected under attorney/client privilege. We now must ask who is the client, Steve Nelsen or the Retirement Board. At the June 15,2011 LEOFF 2 Retirement Board meeting while testifying to the board I requested the one legal opinion that we were aware of from Robert Klausner. The Assistant Attorney General who was sitting at the table advised the board that they, the board, could waive the attorney/client privilege and release the opinion. Not one motion was made to waive the privilege. During the break I approached two board members

individually and asked them to make a motion to waive the attorney/client privilege. This would allow the motion to be debated and acted upon. No motion was made. During the next break I asked Director Nelsen if he who makes suggestions during the meeting would bring up the issue of the attorney/client privilege. He said not likely because he would have to talk to the board's Assistant Attorney General. Again as a simple man I said "The Assistant Attorney General is sitting there at the table, ask him." The issue was not mentioned again during that meeting. Even though I reminded the board that this is not a personal issue, it is a public issue and an issue involving active and retired firefighters and law enforcement officers.
HB 2097 is on the agenda of the LEOFF 2 Retirement Board Meeting on July 27, 2011. Although we have not as of this date, July 24th received the legal opinions of the two law firms we will be expected to comment. We have retained the services of Phil Talmadge to assist us as we prepare for the study committee established by the legislature to study the merger of the LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2 Retirement Systems during the interim. No dates have been set for the study committee meeting.

I have submitted a list of six issues or benefits in the LEOFF 1 Retirement System to Phil Talmadge that I feel should be deemed contractual and protected under Backenhus. We are also looking into IRS rules to see if there is any tax conflict with such a merger and the comingling of retirement funds.

We are meeting regularly with Jerry Taylor, President of the Retired Seattle Police Officers Association and Ken Crowder who has put together a group of L-l retired WACOPS members. Ken was on the board of WACOPS as a LEOFF 1 retired representative but was removed from the board due to his opposition of HB 2097. We have been told that WACOPS has now changed their by-laws to include a retired member on the board however it stipulates that the member shall be a LEOFF 2 retiree. Both Jerry and Ken are very knowledgeable, have a lot of contacts and make a large contribution to our efforts.

The Retired Seattle Police Officers Association has retained Phil Talmadge along with the RFFOW, and is responsible for fifty percent of the legal fees. Ken has collected $1,000 from his group and has deposited that amount with the Talmadge/Fitzpatrick Law Firm to offset our expenses. I am keeping Attorney Joe Fischnaller informed and requested the LEOFF1 Coalition to retain Joe to assbt in convincing the merger study group and the legislature that the merger is a bad idea and not legal or constitutional. As of this date I have been told that the Coalition is only going to monitor the situation. Keep in mind that they have collected funds from LEOFF 1 members under their pre-amble that they will protect the integrity of the LEOFF 1 System. They are now going to monitor the situation after taking no action to protect the fund when the Contribution Holiday was created eliminating the employer/employee contributions. One must ask if this decision is again an attempt to protect the integrity of the fund.